![Irrational Exuberance [E-BOOK: ADOBE READER]](http://images-eu.amazon.com/images/P/B00005NQZZ.01.MZZZZZZZ.jpg) | |
Is the stock market really overvalued?
• • • • • (bewertet mit 4 von 5 Punkten)
Professor Shiller's excellent book provides food for thought, addressing the timely question of whether stocks are overvalued. He notes that P/Es are at historically high levels, and that high P/Es in the past have led to subsequent subpar returns, while low P/Es have led to excellent returns. For example, P/Es were high before the great depression, and low at the beginning of the eighties.
Shiller then goes on to explain a bit about the psychology of bubbles and manias, a field in which he is expert. He intersperses fascinating data that he has collected over the years, especially from the crash of '87, on whether market moves are due to the arrival of new economic information about firms' profitability or whether the market and its participants have a psychology of their own.
Still, I am not going to heed Shiller's advice to sell all my stocks right now. Before doing so, I would like to see him address the following issues (perhaps in Shiller's next best-selling book?):
(1) "The Fed Model" of stock valuations: Shiller uses P/E as a benchmark, rather than comparing yields available on stocks to those available on bonds. Greenspan's famous Irrational Exuberance speech used this benchmark rather than pure P/E (which doesn't compare stocks to alternative investments).
Also, is the nominal bond interest rate relevant for comparing stock to bond investing? The real interest rate? What have researchers discovered on this front?
(2) Shiller does not admit the possibility that there is anything different in today's economy from historically. I'm not convinced. Presumably, the following should be taken seriously, rather than dismissed out of hand:
First, firms are ramping up extremely rapidly in new industries, faster than ever before. It is quite reasonable to expect faster profit growth than the 11% long term average.
Second, reported profits are not what they used to be, they're better: Firms now expense R&D rather than depreciating it, and because R&D has been growing rapidly, reported profits are now much below what they would have been under old accounting standards.
Third, the cost of investing, especially of diversification through US and international mutual funds, has fallen precipitously, making stocks a more attractive investment.
Fourth, the world economy may very well be more stable now than in the past.
Fifth (and I have no idea if this is true), if people are really investing more for the long run than before, then their greater interest in stocks might be warranted, since stocks beat bonds much more consistently over long time horizons than over short horizons. Given this, it is important to know the source of the stock risk premium. Is it based on people's need for liquidity? Are people more or less in need of liquidity from their stocks now than tradiationally? How does the baby boom generation fit into all this?
Still, it's a fascinating book. Will the 35% fall in Nasdaq over the last few weeks be called the Shiller Effect a century from now? --Dieser Text bezieht sich auf eine andere Ausgabe: Unbekannter Einband.
Eine Rezension von David Roth aus Oakland, CA
vom 15. April 2000
|